title i -- >> the senate floor looked a lot like this almost three hours today. >> cade hunter of congressional quarterly what was going on this afternoon in the senate? >> this afternoon senator tom coburn, a republican from oklahoma, objected to what to what is generally waved which is the reading of an amendment, so senator coburn's recommendation forced the clerk to read an amendment offered by vermont's bernie sanders in its entirety which was problematic in a way because for the democrats because the amendment was almost 800 pages long so there were several hours of the senate clerk reading through the amendment which was gobbling up

precious for time. >> how common is it for senators to ask an amendment or bill be asked to read in its entirety? >> it happens from time to time but it's on common. the senate rule requiring a bill to be fred is almost routinely waived. >> can we expect to see more of this kind of tactic? >> we can. republicans are threatening to potentially ask to have a manager's amendment which still has not been fully crafted but the majority leader harry reid is working the next day or so. republicans say they may call to have that amendment which could be several hundred pages read aloud as well. >> let's take quick look how the reading ended. >> sections and t-note to repeal of certain provisions in the employee retirement income security act of 1974. >> the senator from vermont.

>> i withdraw my amendment. >> regular order -- >> the senator has that right, the amendment is withdrawn. >> mr. president, person went -- >> under the previous order the senator from vermont is recognized for 30 minutes. >> mr. president, let me begin not by talking about my amendment but republican action on the floor of the senate. everybody in this country understands our nation faces a significant number of major crises whether it is the disintegration of the health care system, the fact 17% of people are unemployed or underemployed, one out of the four children are living on food stamps, to war, global warming, $12 trillion national debt and

the best the republicans can do is bring the united states government to a halt by forcing the reading of the 700 page amendment. that is an art become outraged. but in this moment of crisis it is wrong to bring the united states government to a halt. >> what was the reaction from democrats and republicans to senator sanders withdrawing his amendment? >> senator sanders helped escalate what would have been simmering tensions between republicans and democrats as the date has dragged on closer to christmas. minority leader mitch mcconnell came later in the day and went to the floor and put out a statement saying that the presiding officer's decision to allow senator sanders to withdraw while that was read violated senate president. democrats are citing it as a case for similar happened in '92

but he said that that was an instance in which the chair and 92 will mistakenly allowing the amendment to be withdrawn. there does seem to be dispute one that can be withdrawn once the amendment is underway but in a broad sense it kind of underscores just how severe partisan tensions are right now. speaking mentioned mitch mcconnell. >> mr. president, the plain language, the plain language of the senate precedent, the manual that governs the senate procedure is by unanimous consent of all members was required before the senator from vermont could withdraw his amendment while was being read.

unanimous consent. >> shortly after that senator durbin explained the democratic perspective. >> as they were reading it came to our attention senator sanders of vermont had authority under senate rules to withdraw his amendment and stopped reading. i wasn't aware of that because i can't recall that ever happened since i've been here but i made a point since many years ago i was parliamentarian of the illinois state senate and tried to read the rules time to time. rule 15 section 2 in the senate, standing rules of the senate it says a motion must be withdrawn or modified by the mover at any time before the decision of an amendment or ordering of yellmac dee dee, yays and nays.

>> and kate hunter of congressional quarterly both sides are accusing the other of breaking the senate tradition. did today change the debate? >> definitely. i would say both sides have been locking horns over this bill for quite awhile but it seems as we are getting closer and closer to crunch time with christmas fast approaching it seems as though things are reaching a fever pitch and today this dispute over how the sanders amendment was handled underscores that. >> could you tell things were different when you were walking around the hallways or on the floor of the senate? >> you can. there were a number of reporters in the gallery dustin of the senate floor earlier today and they were as most people know there are often on of a love senators on the floor while amendment or debate it until the vote is called there were a number of senators out on the

floor. senator reid and senter bachus had a number of intense discussions. senator reid and senator kyl had a number of discussions and you can just tell while there is a normal amount of collegiality between the members things definitely -- the tension escalated. >> when can we expect to see the health care bill back to the floor? >> after this debate over this and resentment the senate has shifted gears and moved to consider -- they are trying to finalize the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations spending bill, which provides money for the pentagon and other military operations, and looks as though that is quite be on the floor because republicans are, again, potentially forcing the closure process which takes several days. that could be on the floor until saturday afternoon or evening, and after that democrats are expected to turn attention back

to the health care bill at that point. >> senator baucus told reporters today the senate may work on christmas day to pass health care reform. is that realistic or just a threat? >> it's definitely a threat. it's also a realistic. you know, with the kind of cumbersome rules in place in the senate and the fact the way that this bill is setting up procedurally democrats have to invoke cloture treat times to get, which is a movement to get to debate to even get to a vote on final passage, so it looks as though the best case scenario would be, i guess what i would say that target end date is now between the 23rd and the 25th. obviously there will be pressure to get it done earlier rather than later but senator rockefeller from west virginia told reporters today he actually is scheduled to preside over the

senate the 22nd, 23rd and 24th from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. so it looks as though there is at least through christmas eve a realistic plan to have the senate up and running if need be. >> to 800 from congressional quarterly, thanks for your time. >> section 1702, repeal of certain provisions in the employee retirement income security act of 1974 to read >> mr. president -- >> the senator from vermont. >> i withdraw my amendment and mr. president -- >> regular order -- >> the senator has the right, the amendment is withdrawn. >> mr. president -- >> under the previous order -- under the previous order the senator from vermont is recognized for 30 minutes. >> mr. president, let me begin not by talking about my

amendment but republican action on the floor. everybody in this country understands our nation faces a significant number of major crises whether it is the disintegration of the health care system, the fact 17% of people are unemployed or underemployed, one out of four children are on food stamps. we have the war, global warming, $12 trillion national debt and the best the republicans can do is try to bring the united states government to a halt by forcing the reading of a 700 page amendment. that is an outrage. people can have honest disagreements but in this moment of crisis it is long to bring the united states government to a halt. mr. president, i am very disturbed that i am unable to bring the amendment i wanted to

bring to the floor of the senate for a medicare for all program. i want to thank senator reid for allowing me to try to bring this amendment to the floor before it was obstructed and delayed and presented by the republican leadership. why did want to mention this legislation is co-sponsored by sure road brown and roland burris, and i was more than aware and very proud that this amendment would have been the first time in american history that a medicare for all single-payer bill was brought before a floor of congress. i was more than aware that amendment would not win. i knew that. but i am absolutely convinced that this legislation with

legislation like it will eventually become law of the land and the reason for optimism that the medicare for all single payer bill will eventually prevail and that will be and is the only mechanism we have to provide comprehensive high quality health care to all of our people in a cost-effective way because it is the only approach that eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative cost, bureaucracy and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies and that is the simple truth. we are not going to provide comprehensive universal cost-effective health care to all of our people without eliminating the hundreds of billions of dollars in

bureaucratic waste and profiteering that currently takes place and is engendered by the private insurance companies. the day will come although i recognize it is not today when the united states congress will have the courage to stand up to the private insurance companies and the drug companies and medical equipment suppliers, and all of those who profit and make billions of dollars every single year off of him in sickness and on that day when it comes, and it will come from the united states congress will finally proclaimed that health care is a right of all people and not just a privilege. and that day will come as surely as i stand here today. madam president, there are those who think medicare for all is

some kind of a fringe idea. just a few left-wing folks think this is the way to go. but let me assure you this is absolutely not the case. the single-payer concept support all across this country. in a 2007 yahoo! poll, 65% of respondents said, and i quote, the united states should adopt a universal health insurance program and which everyone is covered under a program like medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers. madam president, there is also widespread support for medicare for all approach among those people who understand this issue the most, and that is the medical community. and that support goes well beyond the 17,000 doctors in the physicians for national health care programs who are fighting every single day for a single

payer system. it goes beyond the california nurses association, the largest nurses' union in the country who are also fighting for a single payer system. madam president, in march of 2008, a survey of 2,000 american doctors published in internal medicine concluded that 59% of physicians, quote, supported legislation to establish national health insurance, and of quote. and madame president, you would be particularly interested to know that the new hampshire medical society surveyed new hampshire physicians and found, and i quote two-thirds of new hampshire physicians including a 81% of primary care questions indicated that they would favor a simplified payer system in which public funds collected through taxes were used to pay for services to meet the basic

health care needs of all citizens, and of quote. that's new hampshire. in 2007 minnesota magazine certified to become certain surveyed physicians and found 64% favored a single payer system. 86% also agreed that it is the responsibility of society through the government to ensure everyone has access to good medical care, and of quote. but it is not just doctors, it is not just nurses or millions of ordinary americans. what we see now is national, state and local organizations representing a wide variety of regions and interest support single-payer. these include u.s. conference of mayors. u.s. conference of mayors, the american medical students association, the afl-cio, the national association for advancement of colored people,

the national association of letter carriers, the national education association, the united church of christ, the uaw, the international association machinist, united steelworkers, united electrical workers and older american league, older women's league. there are so many other organizations i will not take the time to list but i would ask madame president consent i can submit a list to the desk of all of the organizations representing millions of americans who are sick and tired of the current system and want to move to a medicare for all single payer system. >> without objection. >> thank you. madam president there is also significant support in the house of representatives for a single payer system. together, h.r. 676 and h.r. 1200, two different single-payer proposals, have nine co-sponsors and let me say a word about

state legislatures that have moved forward aggressively toward a single payer system. in california, were largest state, the state your to the kuhl legislature there on two occasions passed a single payer program. largest state in america passed a single payer program and on both occasions it was vetoed by the governor. a new york state, the state assembly passed a single payer system. among other states where single-payer has been proposed and seriously discuss our ohio, massachusetts, georgia, colorado, maine, vermont, washington, mexico, minnesota, indiana, and new hampshire. madam president, why is it that we need an entirely new approach for health care in this country? why is that? and the answer i think is pretty obvious. our current system dominated by

profit-making insurance company simply does not work. yes, we have to confess it does work for the insurance company who make huge profits and provide ceos with extravagant compensation practices. yes it does work and we saw how well it worked yesterday on the floor for the pharmaceutical industry, which year after year leaves almost every other industry in profits while charging the american people by far, not even close, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. so it works for the insurance companies. it works for the drug companies and medical equipment suppliers and many other people making billions of dollars for the health care system. but madame president, it is not working. in fact it is failing for ordinary americans.

today, 46 million people in the country have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles or co-payment. today as our primary health care system collapses, tens of millions of americans do not have access to a doctor on a regular basis and tragically, madam president, some 45,000 fellow americans who do not have access to a doctor on a regular basis by every single year. that is 15 times more americans die of preventable diseases and were murdered in the horrific attack to veto 9/11 attack against our country and that takes place every year, 45,000 people. this is not acceptable. this is a manifestation of a collapsing system that needs fundamental change. madam president a number of

months ago i took to the floor to relate stories i heard from people throughout the state of vermont regarding the health care crisis. stories which i published into a small booklet and placed on my website. let me just tell one story. a man from vermont in the northern part of the state wrote to me to tell me the story of his younger brother, vietnam veteran, who died three weeks after being diagnosed with colon cancer. at that time he was diagnosed he had been laid off from his job and could not afford cobra coverage and this is what his brother said, when he was in the enough pain to see a doctor, when he was in the enough pain to see a doctor was too late. he left his wife and two teenage sons in the prime of his life that 50-years-old. the attending physician said if he had only sought treatment

earlier he would still be alive, and of quote from his brother. madam president, how radically, tragically, that same story is being told in every state in this country over and over again. if only he had gone to the doctor in time he could have lived but he didn't have any health insurance. that shouldn't be taking place in the united states of america in the year 2009. and the problem extends beyond even the thousands who die every single gear needlessly. many authors suffered needless disabilities, strokes that leave them paralyzed because they couldn't afford treatment for their high blood pressure or imputations, blindness or kidney failure from under treat diabetes. infants are born disabled because their mothers couldn't get the kind of prenatal care in the mother should have come and millions with mental illness go on treated today.

in a town in northern vermont not far from where i live a physician told me one third of the patients she treats are not able to pay for the prescription drugs she prescribes. think about the insanity of that. we ask doctors to diagnose heart illness, help us out. she writes a prescription drug. one-third of patients cannot afford the -- to fill the prescription. that is insane. that is a crumbling health care system. and the reason people can't afford to phill prescription drugs is because the pharmaceutical industry forced to buffet the copay by far the highest for prescription drugs. this is indefensible. nobody can come to the floor of this senate and tell me that makes one shred of sense.

madam president, the disintegration of our health care system causes not only unnecessary and in pain, suffering and death, but it is also an economic disaster. talk to small businesses in vermont and new hampshire, anyplace in this country, and they tell you they cannot afford to invest in their companies and create new jobs because of their profits are going to soaring health care costs ten, 15, 20% a year. talk to the recently bankrupt general motors and they will tell you that the spend more money per automobile on health care than they do on steel and in the international competition that they are engaged in. they are forced to pay $1,500 for health care while mercedes in germany spends $419 we would in japan spends $97. try to compete against that.

further, from an individual economic perspective it is literally beyond comprehension that of got nearly 1 million people who will file bankruptcy this year, the vast majority of those people are filing for bankruptcy because of medically related illnesses. further, from an emotional point of view let's just take a deep breath and think about millions of people today struggling with cancer, struggling with heart disease, struggling with diabetes or other chronic illnesses. and you know what? they are not even able to focus on their disease trying to get well. they are using have their energy to fight with insurance companies to make sure they get the coverage they need. that is not civilized. that is not worthy of the united states of america.

madam president in my state of vermont, and i suspect it is similar in every other state of this country, we have all locked into small mom and pop stores and seeing those little donation charas but says help out this or that family because they are struggling with cancer and does not have health insurance or little sally needs some kind of operation and she doesn't have any health insurance. within 1 dollar or $5 to help the family get the health care that the need. this is in the united states of america. this should not and cannot be allowed to continue. madam president, one of the unfortunate things that has occurred in the entire health care debate that we are in right now is we have largely ignored what is happening in terms of health care around the rest of the world. i have heard some of my

republican colleagues say we have the best health care system in the world. jam if you are a millionaire or billionaire but not if you are in the middle class, certainly will win come. it's just not true. today, the united states, despite 46 million being uninsured and more under insured spends almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country. and despite that, our health care outcomes are in many respects, not all but many respects worse than other countries in terms of life expectancy, other countries have more life expectancy than we do. they are better on infant mortality and do a lot better job in terms of preventable death. it seems to me the very beginning of this debate we should have asked a very, very simple question. and what that is why are we

spending more per person than any other country now comes or not as good? madame president according to and oecd report in 2007 the united states -- and that is what this chart is about -- the united states spent $7,290, over $7,000 per person on health care. canada spent $3,896, almost half what we spend. france spent $3,601 less than half of what we spent. the united kingdom spent less than $3,000 italy spent 2600 compared to the more than $7,000 be spent. don't you think that maybe the first question that we might have asked is why is it we spend so much yet our health care outcomes in many respects are

worse than other countries? .. companies. and that reality, that basic reality that we cannot touch private insurance companies -- in fact, that we've got to dump millions more people into private health insurance companies, that was an issue that could not be even discuss discussed. discussed. into private health insurance companies, that was an issue that could not be even discussed.

sadly, despite all the money that we spend, we get poor value for our investment. according to the world health organization the united states ranks 37 in terms of health system performance, compared with five other countries australia, canada germany, they rank next-door last to ask on efficiency at quincy. sometimes these groups pull even. take all of the world paul country and say how do you feel about your own health care system? and we end up way, way down below behind other countries. you know, recently while the canadian health care system is being attacked every single day, they did a poll in canada. and they said every what do you think about your health care system? able in america say you have a poor do you want to trump your system and adopt the american system? by overwhelming numbers,

overwhelming numbers, the people of canada said thank you i'm in no thank you we know the american system, we will stay with our sistan. i was in the united kingdom and had an interesting experience. and i met with a number of people in the conservative party, not the labour party, not the liberal democratic party, the conservative party. the party which likely will become the government of their country. and the conservatives were outraged by the kind of attacks being leveled against the national health system in their country, the lies that we are being told about their system. and in fact, the leader of the conservative party got up to defend the national health system in the united kingdom instead of we come to power, we will defend the united -- the national health system. that was the conservatives. madam president, what is the

problem with our sistan, which makes it radically different than the system in india that are industrialized country? and it is that we have allowed for-profit private corporations to develop and run our health care system and a system that these companies have developed is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the entire world. everybody knows that. with 1300 private insurance companies and thousands and thousands of different health benefit programs, all designed to maximize profits, private health insurance companies spend an incredible 30%, 30% of every health care dollar on the initiation and billing on exorbitant ceo compensation

packages, on advertising, lobbying, and campaigning contributions. this amounts to some $350 billion every single year that is not spent on health care, but is spent on wasteful bureaucracy. it is spent on bureaucrats and insurance company telling us why we can't get the insurance we paid for. and how many people today are on the phone arguing with insurance companies about trying to get the benefits that they pay for? it is spent on staff in a physician's office to spend all of their times amending claims. they're not treating people, they are submitting claims. it is spent on hundreds of people working in the basement of hospitals who are not delivering babies, they're not treating people with cancer, they are not making people well. they're sending out bills. that's what we do. we send out bills. and we spent hundreds of billions of dollars doing that, rather than bringing primary

health care positions into rural areas, rather than getting the dentists that we need, rather than getting the nurses that we need. madam president, let me just a few a few outrageous examples. everyone knows that this country is in the midst of a major crisis and primary health care. we lack.earth, we lack nurses, we like dentists. a major, major crisis getting worse every single day. yet, while we are unable to produce those desperately needed.yours and nurses and dentists, we are producing legions, legion of insurance company bureaucrats. and here is a chart which deals with that issue. what this chart shows is that over the last three decades, the number of administrative personnel, bureaucrats who do nothing to cure our illnesses or keep us well.

a number of bureaucrats has grown by 25 times the number of physicians. this is insurance growth, not existence. this is health care bureaucrats on the phone today telling you why you can't get the health care coverage he paid for or telling you that you have a preexisting condition or throwing you off a health care because you committed a crime last year getting sick. this is where our health care dollars are going and that is why we need a single-payer system. according to a doctor. in testimony before congress, duke university hospital, a very fine hospital has almost 900 billion clerks to deal with hundreds of distinct managed care contracts. you know how many beds they have in the hospital? day have 900 beds. and they have 900 bureaucrats involved in building for the 900 beds. tell me that that makes sense.

madam president, at a time in the middle class is collapsing and when millions of americans are unable to afford health insurance, health premiums are soaring as are the profits of health insurance companies. from 2003 to 2007 the combined profits of the nation's major health insurance companies increase by 170%. and while more and more americans are losing their jobs, the top executives of the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages. in 2007, despite plans that got 3% to four% they found the funds to get ron williams $38 million and ahead of cigna, edwin hanaway took away 120 million over five years. on and on it goes. madam president, let me briefly describe the main features of a medicare for all single-payer

system. and this is, let me briefly describe what's in the bill. in terms of access, people getting into health care, this legislation would provide for all necessary medical care without cost sharing or other barriers to treatment. every other american, not 94%, 100% of american citizens would be entitled to care. in terms of choice, the issue is not choice of insurance companies that are republicans are talking about. they talk about the question of choice and choice of yours, choice of hospitals, choice of therapeutic treatments. and under our single-payer legislation this would provide full choice of physicians and other licensed providers and hospitals. importantly and i know there is some confusion here. a single-payer program is a national health insurance program which utilizes nonprofit

private delivery system. it is not a government run health care system. it is a government run insurance program. in other words, people would still be going to the same doctors, still going to the same hospitals and other medical providers. he only difference is that instead of thousand of separately administered programs run with outrageous ways, there would be one health insurance program in america for members of congress, for the poorest people in our country, for all of us. and in that process we save hundreds of billions of dollars and bureaucratic waste. in terms of benefits, what are you going to get? a single-payer program covers all medically necessary care including primary care emergency care, hospital services, mental health services, prescriptions, prescriptions, i care, dental care, nursing home, as well. in terms of medical decisions,

those decisions under single-payer program are made by the doctors and the patients and not by bureaucrats and insurance companies. madam president, if we move towards a single-payer program, we can save $350 billion a year due to administrative publication, both purchasing improved access with greater use of preventive services and earlier diagnosis of illness he had people able to get to the doctor when they need rather than wait when a really sick and i'm at the hospital. further in importantly, like other countries with a national health care program, we would be able to negotiate drug prices with a pharmaceutical industry and end the uncertainty americas be forced to make two, three, five times more for certain drugs and people around the rest of the world. madam president, every other industrialized country on earth primarily funds health care from broad-based taxes in the same

way we fund the defense department, social security, and the rest of the government. that is how we would fund a national health care service. not another with the funding sources which create a complicated system and enormous waste it and let me be specific. what this legislation would do with number one, eliminate, underline and eliminate all payments to private insurance companies so people would not be paying premiums to united health ballpoint, blue cross blue shield, the private insurance companies. not 1 penny. the reason for that is that private for-profit insurance companies in this country would no longer exist. instead, this legislation would retain all of the tax revenue that currently flows into such public health care programs as medicare, medicaid, chip and it would add to that an income tax increase of 2.2% and a payroll tax of 8.7%.

this payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employee health care. in other words, madam president, employers in this country from general motors to a mom and pop store in rural america would no longer be paying 1 penny toward private insurance revenue. the income tax would take the place of a more current insurance premiums co-pays, deductibles, and all other out-of-pocket payments made by individuals. for the vast majority of people, a 2.2% income tax is way less than what they now pay for all of those other things. in other words, yes you would be paying more in taxes. that's true. but you would no longer have to pay for private health care, private health insurance. and that the end of the day, from both a financial perspective and from a health security perspective we would be better off as individuals and as a nation.

what remains in existence i should add here is the veterans administration. i believe, most of us believe they have a separate set of issues. the va remains as it is. adam president, let me bring my remarks to a close. by giving you an example of where i think we should be going of the country in terms of health care. and oddly enough, the process that i think we should be using is what a small country of 23 million people, the country of taiwan did in 1995. 1995, taiwan was where we were now. massive dissatisfaction with the functional health care system. and they did what we didn't do. if that was put together the best commission began, the smartest people we know, let's go all over the world. let's take the best ideas from country all over the world here at its not the michael chan vice president cfo of taiwan's national insurance health insurance bureau explained that an interview earlier this year the taiwanese ultimately chose to model their system, after

their worldwide search, after our medicare program. that's the way they went except that they chose to ensure the entire population rather than just the elderly. after searching the globe, the taiwanese realized what many americans already know, a medicare for all single-payer system is the most effective way to offer quality coverage at a reasonable price. taiwan now offers comprehensive health care to all of their people and they are spending 6% of their gdp to do that while we spend 16% of our gdp. but unfortunately, the single-payer model was not really ever put on the table. maybe we should learn something from our friends in taiwan. let me just end by saying this. this country is in the midst of a arend of health care crisis. we all know that.

now we can tinker with the system. we can come up with a 2000 page bill which does this, that, and the other thing. but at the end of the day if we are going to do with virtually every other country on earth does, provide comprehensive universal health care in a cost effective way, one that does not bankrupt our government or bankrupt individuals. if we're going to do that, you're going to have to take on a private insurance companies and tell them very clearly they are no longer needed. thanks for your service, we don't need you anymore. and medicare for all program is the way to go. and i know it's not going to pass today. i know we don't have the votes. i know the insurance and the lobbyists will fight us to the day. but mark my words, madam president, the day will come when this country will do the right thing and on that day, we will pass and medicare for all single-payer system. >> mr. president, i rise to make some observations about a matter that occurred here in the senate

earlier this afternoon. mr. president, the plain language, the plain language of the senate precedent, the manual that governs the senate procedure is that unanimous consent of all members was required before the senator from vermont could withdraw his amendment while it was being read. unanimous consent. earlier today, the majority somehow convinced that parliamentarian to break with the long-standing precedent and practice of the senate and the reading of the bill. senate procedure clearly states and i quote, under rule 15, paragraph 1, and senate

precedent and amendment shall be read by the clerk before this up for consideration or before the same shall be debated, a month a request to waive the reading is granted. it goes on to state that quote, the reading of which may not be dispensed with except by unanimous consent. and if the request is denied, the amendments must be read and further interruption are not in order. nothing could be more clear. you may have heard that the majority cites an example in 1992 when the chair made a mistake and allowed something similar to happen. but one mistake does not a precedent make. for example, there is precedent for a senator being beaten with

a cane here in the senate. if mistakes were the rule, then the caning expenditures would be in order. fortunately, for all of us, it is not. it is now perfectly clear that the majority is willing to do anything, anything to jam through a 2000 page bill before the american people or any of us have had a chance to read it. including changing the rules in the middle of the game. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> i'd like to respond to my friend from georgia who just stepped off the floor about the transfer of detainees from guantánamo because he misstated a few things which i don't want to send the record. first time he suggested that these detainees would be freed in illinois. not so.

the plan of this administration is not to free them. the plan is to imprison them in the most secure prison in the united states of america. it's in thompson, illinois, 150 miles from chicago. when i was there a few weeks ago. it's a super max present and never been fully occupied. now they're going to build an additional fence around it. it will be more secure than any prison in america. to suggest they will be freed, they will be freed into the most secure prison in america and they are not coming out, and till such time as a resolution of whatever their issues may be were they pass away. and i might also say that the current law and the united states prohibits the president of the united states from releasing these detainees in the united states. so those statements by the senator from georgia are just flat incorrect.

he is entitled to his decision that we should close guantánamo. i believe we should. on my side of this argument would be the following people were called for the closure of guantánamo. president george w. bush, secretary of state and former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff colin powell, secretary of defense under president bush and under president obama, robert gates. former secretary of state and domestic policy adviser, condoleezza rice, general david betray us and 33 other generals in addition to president barack obama. this argument is that closing guantánamo and dangers the united states ignores the obvious. the people entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the united states for the closure of guantánamo. yesterday robert gibbs, press secretary to president obama was

asked about this decision to transfer. and he said on more than 30 occasions, i'm not sure in the timeframe weather was fishier or a longer period of time but more than dirty occasions they have found direct language of terrorist recruitment activity in the use of guantánamo as an illustration of why people needed to convert to terrorism around the world. it is still being actively used very currently. and that the senator from georgia would go back a few weeks then read newsweek magazine, one of their reporters was captured in tehran and held in captivity for almost four months. he told a story about how he was first incarcerated in a prison and pay one. as he arrives his jailer said welcome to abu ghraib and guantánamo, american. so for us to believe that the rest of the world doesn't have a negative image of guantánamo and

that it isn't being used against our troops is to ignore the obvious. there are some in this body who are hidebound to keep guantánamo open at any cost. i will tell you the cost is too high. if the continuation of guantánamo means danger to our troops, we elected them to close it. the president has reached that conclusion. people in charge of national security have reached that conclusion and we should as well. and then there's this notion about the danger of incarcerating terrorists in the united states. for the record, over 350 convicted terrorists are currently and present in the united states. all over the united states. in my own state of illinois 35 convicted terrorists are in prison today. the most and recent incarceration involves a man arrested shortly after 9/11 into your yacht illinois and unlikely hotbed of terrorism and spy

activity. in fact, this man going to school into your you, illinois, through his communications was linked with al qaeda. he served time in south carolina, eventually was tried in the courts of your yacht, illinois, convicted and now incarcerated in marion, illinois and southern illinois. i heard not one word of criticism when this took place under the previous administration. the belief was this man had to answer currency was charged with and serve time in our prison as a result. never, not once did i ever hear any congressman of either political party say boy, it's unsafe to try him in illinois or it's unsafe to incarcerate him and southern illinois. it's never been said. what happens to these people when they go into our super max prisons where no one has ever escaped they disappear, as they

should, or were they ought to be, isolated a waste and from causing harm from anyone. president obama was looking for an alternative to guantánamo one of the mayors of a small town in illinois, thompson, illinois, just several hundred people living there, wrote to the governor of our state into me and said i've got a big old prison, state built a never been opened. else it did in 2001. it has a capacity of several thousand prisoners in the state could never afford to open it. and we had hoped that this prison would create a lot of local jobs for us. can you find a use for it at the federal level? the obama administration took a hard look at this for a long, long period of time. part of it was done confidentially. and then they came out publicly and that we are seriously interested. the senator from georgia said earlier well, the people of illinois are against this. what is my friend from georgia, come on down to thompson,

illinois. come on down and meet the people who are overwhelmingly supportive and not just democrats, believe me. local state representative jim stasia is a republican, former fbi agent. he said we would be idiots not to take this offer from the federal government. he is right. 3000 jobs. i don't know there is a senator here if you said to them would you be interested in 3000 jobs who wouldn't stand up and say, let's talk. well, we did. 3000 new jobs at this present when it's opened as part of the bureau of prisons and part of the department of defense. and how many guantánamo detainees will be sent there? fewer than 100. we have 35 in our prisons already. life is not changed in my home state of illinois nor has accused many other states where they are incarcerated and it will change in thompson, illinois. these people can be held safely, securely. i trust our men and women in the military to do that. and the members of the senate should do it as well.

these 3000 jobs are going to be a godsend to an area with 11% unemployment. first, a lot of construction jobs and we can use those good paying jobs for americans right here at home. and then, those who worked for the bureau of prisons are going to be paid a good salary and good benefits, the kind of salary you can use to build a family or community or neighborhood. these will be people who will be buying homes, 3000 of them buying homes, cars, shopping for appliances, going to the local shopping malls. is that going to be good for the economy? you that it is. it's just what we need and it's just what this area of the state wants. this argument that we will somehow oppose it is just wrong. the local congressman who opposes it, we've talked about it. we just don't see eye to eye on it. but even in the largest city of his district, rockford illinois, which is at least northeast of thompson, the largest city. the city council in rockford

passed a resolution of approval of this thompson prison 12 to two. in county after county, local county governments were coming out in favor of this thompson prison. those that come to the floor and argue otherwise don't know the facts. and when they know the facts they will realize we're prepared to do this. and now the question is whether the senate will stand behind the president. stand behind our security advisers who believe this is in the best interest of the united states. i think it is. isn't the first time illinois and called it a step in extorting our country. the first super max prison in our federal system is built in marion, illinois coming years and years ago. there was controversy. this was the most secure prison in america, but i'll tell you what, the people of southern illinois valley behind it. it's a prison with a lot of great professionals who have worked there and done their job and an a while. when i go down to marion, illinois and talk to them about guantánamo detainees, they say

senator, listen, send them here. we'll take care of them. we can point among those who are incarcerated at smearing prison to those who are engaged in al qaeda terrorism, colombian drug games, mexican drug cartels, some of the meanest, toughest most violent from the city and the u.s. they are in prison and held safely every single day. i will tell you when i hear people say they don't trust our prison system to hold a handful or 50 or whatever, less than 100 of these guantánamo detainees they had to meet the men and women who do it every single day in america and do it well. and they have to realize that these detainees will be held by our military, the department of defense employees. those are the ones we can trust to do it. so i'd urge my friends, others have been earlier, senator mcconnell came to the floor earlier and it's become unfortunately a party position

now that it's a bad idea. earlier senator mccain and senator graham on the republican side of the aisle didn't argue against the transfer of these detainees. they understand that these prisoners aren't larger than life. they've been imprisoned for eight years. frankly, i don't know how much longer they'll stay there but as long as they are a threat to the united states they will. not a president, i would like to does one address an issue that came up earlier on the floor and often to be put in a separate place in the congressional record. >> without objection. >> madam president, something unusual happened on the floor of the senate today. it happens, but rarely. under the rules of the senate, amendments and bills can be read as a member request and we usually ask to have unanimous consent to dispense with the reader. and routinely that's done every day on scores of different

things. today senator sanders of vermont offered an amendment near and dear to his heart about single payer health care reform and it turned out to be able mns amendment of a hundred pages long and when the time came to us for consent that it not be read it was an objection from senator coburn of oklahoma. and he insisted that it be read. and our poor clerk will staff of peers started reading this bill and a read on for almost two hours or more. and as they were reading it, it came to our attention that senator sanders of vermont had authority under the senate rules to withdraw his amendment and stop the reading of the amendment. now i wasn't aware of that because i can't recall that's ever happened since i've been here. but it made a point since many years ago as parliamentarian. to turn to rule 15, section two

in ascending rules of the senate here's what it says. any notion of resolution may be withdrawn or modified by the mover at any time before a decision amendment or ordering of the a's and made except a motion to reconsider which will not be withdrawn without leave. in other words, until action was taken on the sanders amendment he had the authority under rule 15, paragraph to withdraw his amendment, which it did. some came to the floor and protested and said it was extraordinary and can be backed up by the senate rules. but i refer them to this rule, which is explicit. no action taken place on this amendment other than the introduction of the amendment in the reading. and as it says here, anytime before a decision, amendment, or ordering of the snl i guess as a clerk quarries a trade case by early whirring of the chair relative to the same role that goes back several decades of the ruling of the church today or early for finding of the chair was consistent with the rules of

the senate. but the strategy that came out in the ordering of this amendment to be read is pretty clear when it comes to health care. the republican strategy is clear to anyone who was watching the debate. they don't want amendments. they just don't want us to vote on health care reform. there comes a time when people make the best argument they can and the senate makes a decision and that's what we're facing. that's what we want. we would like to do that in a timely fashion. members here believe that we can do that in a responsible way and move this health care reform bill to a point of a boat, cloture votes, 60 vote requirement. and do that anyway that we can find the sentiment in the senate or the support and measure and just maybe go home for christmas, which a lot of us would like to do. we've been away from our families for quite a while. during the course of this debate, we have been spending a lot of time on the bill itself,

i usually read it here to give people an idea, but it's 2074 page bill and it took a lot of work to get to this point. the amendment will be, the manager's amendment will be several hundred pages and people say why is it so big? it's big because we're changing the health care system in america, represents one sixth of our economy and you can imagine all the different moving parts in this complicated health care system that we address that this bill. during this period of time the republicans have not offered any alternative poor substitute. i thought i would be their first motion to come forward and say that as the democratic plan to change the health care system in america but you want to see the republican plan how much better it is. they didn't do that because there is no republican alternative. there's the republican substitute. last week when i went to the republican website and i invite people to do the same, i found there was only one bill that was printed their health care reform. it was the democratic will, not any bill that's been offered by the republican side.

reason is this is hard work, putting a bill like this together, giving the experts to look at it and decide whether it's going to save money or cost money takes time and we've taken that time to do it right and they have not. so they are either not up to the challenge of preparing an alternative bill or they are content with the current system. and i guess some people are content with the current system. among those who are content with that of the ceos of health insurance companies. they like the system. they make a lot of money. they do it at the expense of a lot of people need health care and the nepean turned on. so unfortunately, the republicans have no constructive proposals to fix our bill. each and every amendment has been some the bill back to the committee, stop working on it, let's do this another day. and all they want to do on the bill is to delay us, as they try to do today with the reading of the sanders amendment. senator judd gregg of new hampshire is a friend of mine

and he and his wife kathy and my wife loretta and i have traveled together on official business of the senate. i like him. he's a smart guy, he's going to retire. and he and his wisdom decided to give a flavor to the republican side of the aisle, which they shared and go through page after page of ways to slow down and stop the united states senate for mac team. senator gregg was entirely within his rights as a senator to do it. but i read in his memo is accurate, the intent and motive for clear. he wanted to stop this bill from moving forward and that became the real cause on the republican side of the aisle. they took a page out of senator gregg's playbook today with senator coburn's demand to that the amendments be read. but it didn't work. i'd like to ask unanimous consent now to add a statement at this point in the record of a colloquy between former senators adams and packwood on the floor

of the united states senate on september 24, 1992. >> without objection. >> .incidentally, madam president, is a colloquy i referred to earlier where the chairman had the same ruling on that day as was made today, finding in terms of rule 15 paragraph 2. i also would like consent to add to the record at this point the memorandum prepared by senator gregg for the republican side of the aisle, concerning the rights of the minority in the senate in which i mentioned earlier, largely include the rights to slow down and stop the activity of the senate. >> without objection. >> thank you, madam president. not a president, i would just say that with senator mcconnell came to the floor after the ruling of the chair and the decision of the chair he said that the plain language of

the senate president, the manual that governs the procedure is that unanimous consent of all members was required before the senator from vermont can withdraw his amendment while it was being read. he said a required unanimous consent, but that is not what the language of the senate rules that i've read say. they say that a senator has a matter of right under rule 15, paragraph 2, the right to withdraw his amendment before action is taken. in this case as mentioned earlier at 1992 backs of the parliamentarian's decision that interpretation of the rule. so i would say that it didn't work today to stop or slow down the senate. currently, we are not technically debating health care reform. before is now the department of defense appropriation bill, the conference report from the house, which i hope that we can move on quickly.

i think it's a noncontroversial. it's a matter of finding money for troops who are risking their lives overseas in supporting their families at home in providing health care for members of the military and their families. i don't think there's much debate about that. it also extends the employment benefits that people need across america, which passed with a 97 to nothing not that long ago when it was considered here. these are matters which should move along and do it in a fairly straightforward way. i would hope that we could show some bipartisanship when it comes to our men and women in uniform and to prove the department of defense appropriation bill which does not contain anything controversial to ponder what i've just described. we cannot give it to the health care reform bill. i think it's important that at some point do we bring this to a vote to find if we indeed have 60 votes for health care reform. i sincerely hope we do. i'll close by saying this health care reform bill has many critics but also have features

which can't be denied. the first of those features are this does not add to the deficit of the united states. it reduces the deficit by $130 billion over ten years in $650 billion more over the following ten years at we've also received reports from the congressional budget office that there result of this bill will be declined in the increase of cost health insurance premiums, something that we desperately need. it is a bill that will also extend health-insurance coverage to 30 million more americans that don't have it today, 50 million uninsured americans, 30 of them, 60% of them will have the protection of health insurance coverage 94% of americans le havre health-insurance coverage, the highest percentage of it united states of america as a result of this bill. i know this bill addresses the issue of whether or not health-insurance companies can continue to deny coverage when people need it the most.

we know stories from our life experience in our families and people at our office is that people in the most native health-insurance protection are often turned down by the companies. they pore through the applications and say you failed to disclose a preexisting condition. they say that your amount of coverage has lapsed. your child is too old to be covered by your family plan the list goes on and on. we'll finally, some of the most egregious abuses by health-insurance companies are addressed in this bill and consumers across america were given the legal power to fight back and the legal power to be protected. that's why this bill is important and worth passing. all the criticism now with standing i might also say it is a bill that is critical for the future of medicare. we do nothing, medicare is going broke in seven or eight years. with this bill we are told it will extend the life of medicare up to ten more years. that's good news to put medicare on financial footing so our

seniors, the president -- is that a majority leader of the united states senate came to the floor two days ago to announce something else that will be part of the conference committee here the so-called doughnut hole for prescription drugs under medicare is going to be filled so that seniors will no longer have a period of uncertainty where they are bills have reached a level or they're disqualified from payment. the so-called doughnut hole. it will be filled. it will give them peace of mind that if they have expensive pharmaceuticals they will have no interaction in coverage when it comes to those pharmaceuticals in the future. for seniors, these are two major things to put medicare in sound financial footing and to fill the doughnut hole of the medicare prescription program. it also is going to give seniors for the first time access to the kind of preventive care regular checkups that they need for peace of mind and so the doctors and professionals can catch problems before they get worse. so this bill is a positive bill

and a positive step forward. yesterday we had a chance as they senate of the caucus to meet with president obama. and the president talked to us about what this bill means. and he reminded us that seven presidents have tried to do this and failed. he told us when he started this track that he wanted to be the last president to deal with health care reform because he wanted to get it done. i feel the same way. i think the american people feel the same way. i'm sure there's confusion. there's a lot of statements made about death penalty and things that really have no basis in fact. the people should be confident that when the aarp, the american association of retired persons set up and says this is a good ill for the seniors and americans for medicare and social security and for their families. when medical professionals, doctors, and medical professional stand up and say this is a good bill that we have to kind of support that we need to save the american people, this is an important step forward in health care

protection in america. it is time for us to make history and pass this bill. let's do it and do it in time for members to enjoy christmas with their families. not a president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

>> he was not imposing figure. he was not a giant of his time. and yet he emerged as the nominee at a time when the party was populated by big fears. >> his mark in history includes manifest destiny and in his new biography of james k. polk, a country of vast design, robert ehrlich said the life and times of our 11th president sunday on c-span q&a.

sports executives and broadcasters told a house panel that the piracy of live sports broadcasts over the internet is a rapidly growing problem. during this two-hour hearing, the house judiciary committee heard from officials with major-league eightball, espn, and ultimate fighting championship. also testifying a representative from justin.tv, a website that allows its users to broadcast and share video online. >> everyone, particularly our witness says.

this is a hearing on piracy of live sports broadcasting over the internet. the purpose of the hearing is to examine how the piracy of live sporting events over the internet impacts sports leagues, consumers broadcasters, and the unique challenges copyright owners face in attempting to enforce their rights on the webpage. more and more of our media, the music, tv shows, and the sports is moving to the internet. piracy has increased as increasingly injured artists and intellectual property owners as individual consumers have access to faster, more powerful internet connections. the judiciary committee has convened today's hearings to

discuss an emerging form of piracy, that of live broadcasts in real time, especially with regard to sporting events. this is supposed to allow us to examine how new technologies that allow for the streaming and real-time of sporting events also may allow individuals to evade intellectual property laws. and so, i look forward to learning from our witness says about the frequency of internet piracy of live sporting events, how this type of piracy can negatively affect consumers and what we may want to do about it. i'm pleased now to recognize my friend from texas, lamar smith the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this oversight hearing focuses

on an emerging and disturbing the last act of internet piracy, the unauthorized streaming of live television broke remain. today the committee will discover the impact of this privacy on sports leagues. the programming produced by professional and college sports associations such as the major-league a. spell, the national basketball association, the ultimate fighting championship and the national collegiate athletic association is among the most popular and unfortunately the most pirated programming in the world. sports leagues are investing significant amounts to monitor the piracy of their property and provide notices to internet service providers and website operators to take down content. the cost of these efforts are then passed on to sports fans and consumers when they purchase ticket or subscribe to sports networks. leagues spend billions of dollars annually to build and market their brands.

half or more of their revenue derived from exclusive television deals, pay-per-view sales, and licensed internet distribution. the unauthorized distribution of all forms of life in pre-produced video programming is widely and readily available via the web. an example of this is in pirated movies become available on the internet before the reduced to movie theaters. there's an old expression that applies here. why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? why pay for the sporting events if you can watch it online for free? the wider adoption of broadband elegy, the widespread availability of inexpensive devices to upload television signals to the web and the global nature of the internet together pose enormous challenges to rights holders. the organization for economic cooperation and development declared the use of p. to p. has

become a significant threat for the sports broadcasting industry, and quote. the united states trade representative has noticed that china, which today has more internet users than any other nation is a nation of particular concern when it comes to internet piracy. internet piracy particularly the fact of life programming has increased dramatically in recent years. it's clear we need to assess the state of the lot technology and to begin consideration of the steps that are to be taken, domestically and internationally to respond to this new and damaging form of piracy. esther chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and that will yield back my time. >> thank you very much. did any other member want to bring greetings. i noticed magistrates and johnson, chairman of the subcommittee himself has indicated in the affirmative and the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman for

holding this very important -- thank you for holding this important hearing on a very important development in animals of history of communication. piracy comes in many forms and no content provider is immune. today we will examine the impact that streaming piracy has on live sporting events and the unique challenges copyright owners face and enforcing their rights. specifically we will hear about how streams are distributed over the internet and the confines of the digital millennium copyright act, which is intended to protect copyrighted works in the digital environment. the effects of piracy are

widespread and filled across the nation. unfortunately, illegal streaming of sports events is on the rise and negatively impacts our economy. it also hurt consumers. when individuals illegally stream sports event, companies lose revenue. consequently, companies pass down the cost to consumers who seek to lawfully view live sporting broadcast online. furthermore, pirating sports events as a negative impact on the sports. a few were funds are received by rights holders from the sale of the broadcasting rights, then fewer funds will be available to invest back into the sport. it is imperative that congress act to send the message loud and clear that the legal streaming

or copyrighted content is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. i thank the chairman for holding this hearing and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today all of whom i thank for being here. >> thank you, chairman johnson. we welcome our panels, a very distinguished group of men and women. professor christopher yoo, not to be confused with john yoo, no relation. >> no relation, mr. chairman. >> mr. ed door -- door so. these are michael siebel, mr. lorenzo ortega and of course michael malice who will start us

off. i just want to say this about ten. i rarely say up later than my bedtime to read law review articles, but yours, which exceeded 100 pages was very fascinating and i want to compliment you for it. as senior vice president, general counsel of a major league baseball advanced media and interactive company of major league baseball founded in 2006, the coalition against online video piracy. prior to that, he was deputy general counsel for news media at major league baseball click

for a federal court. a judge and without diminishing any of his reputation he graduated with honors from harvard law school. and so we include all of your statements in the record and we welcome you to these proceedings. [inaudible] >> you need to turn the mic on. >> chairman conyers, first thank you very much mr. chairman i appreciate the kind words that you just said. good morning everyone. chairman conyers, ranking member smith and distinguished members of the committee on behalf of major-league a. spell i would like to thank you for addressing me this morning. i name is mike malice and i'm senior vice president and

general counsel of mlb advanced media which is mlb's internet and interactive media company. under the leadership of commissioner allan h. seely, mlb has developed highly successful diverse and innovative supports media on television are game telecaster distributed nationally through dreck tv, espn, fox and demand, the mlb network, tbs, and verizon. locally through broadcast television stations and regional networks and internationally to over 200 countries and territories in the u.s. armed forces overseas. on the internet, mlb has been a pioneer in distributing my sports. mlb's first live game webcast occurred in 2002, and innovation to better serve our fans in the pioneering tradition of the first radio broadcast of one of our games in 1921 in the first television broadcast of one in 1939. today mlb.tvs is the world's

most successful and comprehensive live video service on the internet distributing thousands of games live each season to a global audience of baseball fans using personal computers and iphone. clearly, rights owners like mlb be adversely affected and right now there's an emerging type. another is the dreaming of live television and of all types including live sports telecasts and related programming. the number of sites and services involved in this phenomenon is significant and is growing rapidly. they are believed to be located in many nations including the people's republic of china. in the united states. many are open doors permitting any type of primary and to be streamed live persistently and globally without authorization from copyright owners. this poses a threat to the global televised media such your.

although there is much that remains unknown about this problem amah particularly with direct with offshore aspects it is clear that i'm an annual basis tens of thousands of hours of live television programming from networks around the world are being pirated. included is significant piracy of live sports. and our right enforcement efforts throughout the past several years, during a tree of catalog thousands of piracy incidents, the dominant pattern we have seen his piracy occurring through streaming over peer-to-peer services based in china. late last year, we observed a newer pattern involving live streaming user generated content sites, sometimes called live cast inside, most of which are located in the united states. we have also seen that when operators of sites and services decide to take affirmative steps to prevent or block unauthorized streaming, the piracy can be substantially mitigated. our copyright law is clear.

this is copyright infringement. however, domestic copyright infringement, domestic copyright litigation. this is because the piracy is global, often involving sites and services that operate entirely offshore, outside the effective reach of our courts. approximately 75% of the pirated retransmissions of our game telecasts have occurred through offshore sites and services and approximately 50% of the total through tiny sites and services. under these circumstances, the remedial steps available to the private sector are limited. we therefore believe that international cooperation about this problem must be approved. those nations are both exporters and importers of television programming. so we see common ground both in terms of shared economic interests and legal obligation for the u.s. and its trading partners to work cooperatively

to curtail this problem. we don't therefore recommend the congress administration give this priority and our nation's ongoing efforts to improve intellectual property rights protection and enforcement on a worldwide basis. .. demonstrated growth characters. the threat it poses to the u.s. televised media sector must be taken seriously. we believe it is prudent to move proactively against the threat now and we commend this committee for shining a shot light on it today through this hearing. as we develop more experience in the area, we look forward to the opportunity to make additional recommendations to you. once again, thank you very much for your interest in the matter and for the privilege of addressing you this morning. >> thanks. ultimate fighting championship

has been the main activity of mr. lorenzo, our next witness. he is a sports promoter he has got degrees from san diego university, and the stearns school of business at and why do you. welcome to our hearing, sir. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you chairman conyers. thank you ranking member smith and distinguished members of the committee. i would like to thank you for inviting me to appear to discuss on lange screening including pirated live sporting events, to true honor for me to be here and i am pleased to explain how unlawful streaming of our pay-per-view events adversely impacts our business. the piracy of live sporting events is illegal and kills jobs and threatens the expansion of u.s. based companies. in 20001 my brother and i along with their friend dana white

purchased the ufc. we saw great potential in ufc when many thought we were crazy. we took a great risk but today the ufc is a phenomenal success creating an impacting thousands of jobs for athletes licensees partners and affiliates. that success is threatened by the retransmission of our live pay-per-view events which account for nearly half of our revenues. our copyright production works are critical to our survival get they are infringing, yet there are an fringy web site where you will find almost any type of content which is all like the power to. these include light ufc events nfl mba and mlb games, the olympics and virtually every tv show and movie. if copyrighted words are allowed to be pirated with impunity potential effects on u.s. producers of entertainment programming including the thousands of jobs they create will be disastrous. the ufc is potentially losing tens of millions of dollars a

year from piracy. here is how the theft occurs. which is simple adapter purchase for many retail electronics store like the one i hold my hand someone with access to one of our lead defense reproduces the program in retransmited over the internet with these new web site. the site that allows any user to view the programming without authorization or payment. >> unauthorized hewers watch the like it then just like those who lawfully purchase the content for pay-per-view. just last month the broadcast of ufc 106 had over 271 unauthorized streams with over 140,000 views and those are just the streams are piracy team was able to locate. we do our best to have our copyrighted content removed from these web sites. we have a team of in-house technicians scanning the web sites and chair rhymes to find party content. we also hired several to assist us in a separate. however even for our, even after

requesting streaming web site takedown are part content it is often too late because the value of our content is extremely perishable. and match can be over in seconds aleve knit the web site takes the infringed content down within 15 minutes the damage is done. i like to the emphasize as a business entrepreneur i applaud the development of technologies that help consumers access entertainment in more robust in creative ways. indeed ufc employees new technologies to provide their fans with the content the love in the format the desire and we in no way want to discourage the development and use of legitimate methods of distribution. however the use of technology to circumvent our property laws and aid the piracy of content is something we cannot and should not tolerate. based on our observation many of these web sites are making fortunes by aiding in the that the ver content and making it available to their web site. while this purports to be a forum for users to share their

own original user-generated feel content they cannot deny that watching a live football game will not generate much if any your interest. certainly would not drive enough traffic to rate in advertising revenue model. the truth is most of the content is generated any real traffic consists of infringing streams of codkin-- copyrighted works. the web sites often promote or induce infringement by destructing users on how to up live live content from a television computer or other device. i submit they have deliberately chose not to take reasonable precautions to deter rampant infringement because the profit from the availability of infringing screens on the site. as the committee examines this important issue we believe there are steps that can be taken to help alleviate these problems. web site operators are in the best position to stop the rhee transition of stolen light streaming content. for example they should not permit streaming content unless these seek confirmation.

they should take steps to disable instantly the ability of pirate from backloading content including blocking any uploads from their ip addresses. they should also institute strict limits on the number of the worst that can see a particular strain. these sites ship preserve identifying information about their users and they should require such information as providing access to their streaming technology web sites. they should incorporate the latest technologies perhaps electronic fingerprinting to prevent the piracy there currently aiding. mr. chairman we are at a critical moment in the evolution of digital content delivery and it is critical our policymakers sent an unambiguous signal that user and companies to engage in these activities should not be allowed to operate along the law and examine our loss to see it updates may be needed for the rampant piracy of these new sites is allowed to continue it threatens the financial viability of the ufc and many businesses that rely upon these

live broadcast. i want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to testify today. we it ufc would be pleased to assist the committee in any way and answer any questions. >> thank you mr. fertitta. our next witness is michael seibel, an amazing young man, full founder and ceo of the web site justin.tv, which has become the largest live video site on the web with more than 30 million visitors each month. and before that, he was a campaign director for our former colleague, and we recognized his talent, because he is a political science graduate of yale university. welcome to the hearing. and. >> chairman conyers and ranking member smith and members of the committee-- >> push the button.

>> thank you for allowing me to testify today. justin.tv is a privately owned technology startup formed in 2006 and based in san francisco with 32 employees. we are freight capital from some of the investors and engineers behind tivo, google, twitter, skyped, hotmail and many other will not technology companies. we provide a platform that empowers people to create insure lied video online. our side is the modern equivalent of the town square but instead of standing on a soapbox a user can broadcast his or her message to the world. our vision is to make like videoport of the internet experience in the same way that other companies have brought on line images news and video clips into the mainstream. anytime of traditional consolidation justin.tv is providing important alternative platform for the distribution of fled video content. in addition to providing everyday people with access to a larger audience we have worked with a wide variety of owners,

advertisers and inattentive to help them increase awareness of the content and services. in 2009 alone comcast and g4tv lice justin.tv for live coverage of e3 the largest video game conference in america. microsoft produce the live show on the side attracting over 2 million potential new customers and the jonas brothers broadcast live promoting their disney movie which one on to gross almost $40 million worldwide. we individuals to large corporations. because we provide thousands of channels of content 24 hours a day seven days a week it is impossible for justin.tv tim manager its broadcast. the dnc recognizes this impossibility providing online providers like justin.tv cook bake harbor from infringement liability. we complied with the dmca by among other things responding to take the accounts of repeat infringers expeditiously.

like justin.tv all four majors ports pose to the generated qanta on the web sites and rely upon the dmca to protect themselves from liability for the content uploaded by their users. we work with copyright holders to go above and beyond the dmca in our effort to ensure unauthorize content does not appear on the side. one example of a separate is our copyright protection system an on line tool that enables copyright owners to burr move their content on the site. another is the recent partnership to implement light filtering through which it copyright owners content is compared to streaming on justin.tv in real time and when there's a match infringing content is removed. the system was deployed on november 15th and immediately began removing fox's static content from the site. on sunday we tested the system with nbc and the nfl for the sunday night football game. the live filter was successful in removing the majority of infringing channels

automatically. at this point the past of full the climate is clear. among the hundreds of organizations that take advantage of one remore solutions referenced above are the nfl, nba come mlb, ufc, espn, nbc, fox, cbs, abc and comcast. whaup providing solutions that go above and beyond the requirements of the dmca has not become standard in a live video industry we believe strongly in the value of providing donors with resources to protect rights and invest the time and money in developing such resources. we are sensitive of the concerns of the sports industry and a memorandum of understanding with fox and major american sports league that lays out how we can work together to combine these issues. we are actively negotiating similar agreements with the nfl, mlb, nbc and sunday with the cult finalizing agreements before the new year. our goal is to democratize the

power of live video and the misuse of our technologies lows our progress towards that goal. we trust this committee in congress will recognize and protect the interests of technology companies and provide citizens with the tool to share their voices with the world. while also considering the concerns of copyright owners. we are available to assist the committee and are happy to answer your questions. >> thank you mr. seibel. edmund durso heads espn, and developed the magazine as well. previously, he served in a number of leadership roles in the office of the commission of major-league baseball, and he is a graduate with honors from harvard university. i know to delete.

we are glad to have you here. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, mr. chairman ranking member smith and members of the committee i would like to begin by commending you for holding this hearing and in particular for your focus on emerging forms of internet piracy. and today's economy we cannot afford to let the theft of u.s. intellectual property undermined the vitality of what should be among our most promising created an economic assets. each year espn invents billions of dollars to produce tens of thousands of hours of high-quality sports programming for distribution by television and a growing array of new media platforms. we are here today because sports is not-- we see this on an increasing number of internet sites for ender the focus of today's hearing part of these sites enable the real time theft of lives porch programming uploading directly by the site operators providing users on the sides. in the interest of time let me highlight a few points from my testimony.

first it is important to recognize this is not a problem of lives four doors ports in general. the same sites also make available real-time streaming of many other types of television and new media programs. this is an issue that affects the entire global media sector. this problem is indecent and heavily international in scope and impact. in many cases the streaming sights set up overseas particularly in asia where the sites can take advantage of massive fraud and capacity legal uncertainty and in many instances lax enforcement. there to give you a sense of espn's experience with this we regularly see espn's linear cable networks including espn, espn2 made available for streaming in real time without authorization. in addition the programming will make available to our new media offerings is also regularly retransmited on the size. espn has been a pioneer in expanding legitimate access to

live sporting events to broadband services. espn 360.com is our signature sports network providing access to more than 3500 like domestic international sporting events each year. farrar investment technology this programming these events are available by espn 360.com to millions of households to internet service providers. we also provide this programming to u.s. college students and all u.s.-based military personnel by capus and military broadband networks. these efforts of you the tremendous benefits for consumers many households served by espn 360.com would not have legitimate access to these events but for our investment. yet many of these same events appear routinely without authorization on internet streaming sites. it is not hard to see how the widespread unauthorized and uncompensated availability of the content that we pay to

produce and distribute would undermine our incentive to invest in and provide this high-quality content. whether through innovative offerings or more traditional linear networks. important finally, on the challenges we see here are new in the process of devising solutions is still ongoing, we can learn something from what we experience when user-generated content sites for scheme online. there we saw in the media on my distribution platforms with interesting possibilities to promote legitimate user-generated activity but we also saw the possibilities completely overrun by piracy. as described in my written testimony espn's parent, the walt disney company was one of several that led the way to develop a set of principles for user-generated content services. under these principles participating services and content providers agreed on a set of objectives that included the elimination of infringement on the services and the

encouragement of the bloats of original unauthorized user-generated content. while we consider whether the measures in these principles would be effective for sufficient to address piracy on live streaming sites as a starting point those sites that claim their commitment to promoting legitimate user-driven environment should embrace the objective of eliminating infringement on their sites. ss been done by the leading sites, that objective should be perceived by implementing those mechanisms that are reasonable and effective to that end. that commitment is important not only to protect the rights of creators and legitimate distributors of creative content but is also key to driving the development of a robust, trusted and content legitimate streaming in parliament. mr. gemina want to thank you for your attention to this important issue and for the opportunity to appear before you. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you sir. we now conclude with christopher

yoo, university of pennsylvania professor of law. numbers of books and articles that flowed from his pen. he has clerked for justice anthony kennedy and appellate judge arthur raymond randolph, and is taught that brand of bill university law school, and as usual he is a harvard university law graduate. we welcome you today, sir. >> thank you chairman conyers, ranking member smith and members of the committee. i'm grateful for the opportunity to testify in the subject of piracy of live sports broadcasting. today mosaddegh intention has been focused on the unauthorized copying of pre-recorded television. today's hearing provides welcome attention on the unique problems and challenges posed by piracy of live television.

the wide range of companies offer devices that take advantage of what is known as the analog whole to enable users to copy high-definition television programming directly to personal computers. these devices typically connected the component videoport on cable and television set-top boxes which are the trio of red, green and blue jacks that appear on the back of a wide range of devices. because these ports convey data in an analog format they lack the more sophisticated copy protection built into ports. once live television programming has and captured on a computer the person wishing to share the unauthorized copy must find a way to distribute it for the one means of doing so is streaming video in which the copier establishes an internet connection with the interested viewers and delivers the programming for a continuous flow of data. those making unauthorized copies of live television programming

have increasingly used peer-to-peer systems to distribute them. and the peer-to-peer system the content is saved in a file that is sent to and stored by multiple and users throughout the network. those wishing to view the program candon connected any of the locations where the file has been saved. because peer-to-peer systems require programs be recorded and then stored and then access they have imposed delays that would render them unsuitable for distributing live television programming. more recently peer-to-peer systems have become saving like programming in short segments of approximately ten seconds. this has enabled those making unauthorized copies to distribute the content without having to wait until the end of the program. it has also enabled the worst to view these programs on a new life basis simply by accessing a series of small files instead of one large one. preventing the dissemination of unauthorized copies of video content's is more difficult

challenges for live television-- television for the one the most effective means of deterring piracy is fingerprinting which takes advantage of the fact that every segment of the television program is a characteristic pattern. with these patterns are stored in a database web site honors a network providers can analyze the programs they carry determined whether they consist of copyrighted content. the problem is that ascertaining and disseminating these fingerprints require a certain amount of time. the delay inherent in fingerprint based solutions limits their effectiveness when live video programming is involved. moral for those seeking to distribute pirated video content are employing a variety strategies to evade detection which has in turn prompted content owners to respond with a number of strategies. the result is an endless cat and mouse game in which both sides spent significant resources and it tends to stay one jump ahead of the of the. technical measures to prevent

piracy can be supplemented and reinforced with legal measures. this judy did nature of the content of the internet makes it difficult and costly to target private individuals, the once or actually making the copies. consequently legal response is generally focus on commercial actors that facilitate illegal piracy such as those firms that manufacture the devices that make actual copies in the web sites that post unauthorized copies or provide information about where to find such content. for example manufacturers of the devices that they copy protection may be subject to liability under the copyright act. in addition web sites that serve as focal points for information about where to find unauthorized copies may be subject to vicarious liability or copyright infringement for their role in facilitating piracy. recently france and u.k. adopted three strike policies that mandate that network providers cut off subscribers who are

repeatedly violating the copyright laws. lastly declines in the cost of children technologies have led some jurisdictions to consider requiring web sites and the providers to filter the content the kerry to determine whether it is a copyright. the problem of piracy is complicated by the fact that any solution will inevitably involve a wide variety stakeholders including content owners, device manufacturers, network providers web sites and software firms. the problem is those who would benefit from implementing solutions to piracy are often different from those who would bear the cost. the multifaceted nature of the problem is it hard for the industry to find common ground. congress may be able to play a constructive role in crafting a solution. the seering represents an important first up in addressing this the get the get problems posed by the piracy of bloodsport broadcasting and ipers sheet the opportunity to assess the committee and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you professor.

we welcome adam schiff to this hearing, howard coble, maxine waters, and bill delahunt came through but he did not stay. he will come back out. now, i thank all of you. so, the two questions that occur, what are some possible legal remedies and how good are these techniques that we have heard from both seibel and yoo about fingerprinting and cutting off offending repeat subscribers as they do in britain and france. but, nobody has suggested any

legal remedies and that is why we may have to hold other hearings. and so, i am just fastforwarding to what we are going to do after this great hearing today and everybody is alerted and may know a little something about it. but, where do we go from here, mr. mellis? >> well, chairman conyers you have asked the most important question right off the bat. we don't believe there is a silver bullet to stop this problem. we would agree with professor yoo that is a very complicated one. we do believe that international cooperation needs to be improved, that practices and

standards in other countries where we have seen the weight of the gravity of the problem of curring needs to be brought up to ours. we know this piracy in the united states is copyright management but in other countries particularly in china were for reasons that mr. durso explained, the situation is unclear enforcement is lax, so one essential part of the enduring solution is we think going to need to include improved cooperation with our trading partners and otherwise and of course the government, the agencies in the united states government are involved in the intellectual property rights protection and enforcement internationally in many ways and i think it would be important to prioritize this issue among all of the important and hard work that they are doing. second i would say, if we can bring the u.s. sites and services up to best practices,

then we have a model that we can show. let's say the chinese government or other governments, and say, this is how we can work. this is how on the one hand these sites and services can do the legitimate things that they offered, and at the same time protect copyrighted works. >> well, thank you very much. after watching our president, global solutions seem pretty hard to come by these days, but does the u.n. have a role in this? i mean, we have very creative lawyers in back of me here that made all these kinds of ideas. >> i think there is a role in the realm of international

copyright and related treaties in general and there are a number of them that establish minimum standards in foreign countries and national treatment, and the world intellectual property organization of the united nations is an important player in all of that, and so that is an area that i agreed should be pursued, but it will need all so the follow-through of having our signatories to those treaties and the treaties are already clear in our view that this type of piracy violates them and they need to enforce their legal obligations. >> wait until ambassador susan rice hears about this at the u.n.. mr. fertitta. >> yes mr. chairman. >> what do you think? >> i think that, i look at this,

i am not an expert in technology and i'm not an expert in law. i bought a business that was nearly bankrupt, invested a tremendous amount of money and have chronic into what is now international media company where we distribute our products to over 170 countries around the globe to over four to 500 million homes worldwide. >> i am proud of you but that is not why we brought you here today. >> ina stan. when i'm looking at this from our perspective, i know the dmca was put in place but i'm not sure that contemplated livestream events. certainly, when somebody puts up a song that is created, and there is this issue of notice and takedown and what is the amount of time that it should take to take that down, the amount of damage if it is within

24 or 48 ours is significantly different than it is to one of our did-- events which is a life pay-per-view and the value of our product goes down significantly, it is very perishable, every minute that goes by. @ u#@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @r creating a standard in the united states for how sites that allow individuals to create and share live video can also work with copyright holders to protect their rights, and so we believe that through our

copyright protection system and also through the new filtering, live filtering system that we've if unable to build one. those are to affirmative steps that we believe can certainly address this concern in terms of internationally or legal based solutions. unfortunately i don't have much to contribute on that front. >> have you ever considered law school? [laughter] no, you've been very helpful. you have introduced the whole topic of the fingerprinting mr. durso? >> i do want to echo what has been said before and point out we are entrepreneurs also, and we really need perhaps the power of persuasion and pressure of this committee and like kennedy's to keep the pressure on individuals like mr. seibel. if you look what's happening. you can't traversed on their

index page and see stream after stream after stream of professionally produced, high-quality espn and other products and not say there's something wrong here in order to be addressed. we are doing what we can but professor yoo you describe how difficult a process that is, and a real-world example. we've made the decision eight years ago to launch d'aspin 360 .com. it is a tremendous service and application to support the growth and development of broadband. today it has 3500 eve ensler year. it's a terrific product. we have a business model in which the isp paid a fee and distributed and today i said it is more than 50 homes and providing a lot more product to people. now today if i were contemplating launching that surface i might look around and say this is crazy. there's not an environment this can take hold. we started seven years ago investing tens of millions of the worst to produce something at a time when the surface like

dustin tv wasn't fought off by anybody. but today it exists and its neatly packaged, will produce and provides certainly a significant part of the landscape what people like us want to do in terms of deciding to invest. >> tell me how espn that you mentioned operates and is unique from other web sites and why you chose not to offer it as a subscription product to broadband connected consumers. >> certainly. we have addressed any of the platform distribution opportunity that's come along in our 30 years of existence. we are platform agnostic and figure out ways to put the espn brand product on in the stream, is where we think there can be returned. broadband is no difference we've

looked at that in a number of different ways espn360.com is one such application as i said we think it works very well in the broadband environment. we decided that among a number of approaches we would approach internet service providers directly and see if we can produce a product that has the es p.m. brann all i would that be helpful to you in terms of selling your product to consumers. the answer we got was yes so we were happy to príncipe in the development of new businesses on their part and at the same time the distribution of the enhanced distribution of broadband throughout the country. now planning and now what she might be back in the early 90's espn was among the first to embrace and distribute significant quantity of hd programming at a time it was very me since. we think we did a lot to support the growth of hd and ultimately the whole digital transmission as hd led up to that. so that's a similar circumstance. we look to build successful products that can work in an

environment where we are making investments and working with distributors to provide something for them we think benefits consumers. the fact that it's available to 50 million homes today, 70% of broadband universe we think is a significant indicator that's been a successful effort. >> so you didn't think it was economically wise investment? >> no, we looked at the development -- >> why you didn't offer it as a subscription product, you didn't think it was liable. >> we saw an opportunity, mr. chairman, to get on board the train we thought was leaving and what do well which is broadband. that is not the business we are in. we are not a platform, we are a content company and said how can we participate in this in a meaningful way to offer something to broadband distributors that would help their business. we have other products available in other areas so we are not just putting all of our eggs in one basket.

espn.org is on the open in the internet. it has tremendous free product including video and clips. we offer a product called espn insider, which is a subscription based adjunct to espn.com and along with walt disney we are approaching we felt this was a good opportunity and the proof is in the putting it seems to work well. >> okay. professor, you already made a couple of good suggestions. what about the legal basis? these are technical. how do we assume these guys? how dewey prosecute these guys? and everybody agrees we are complaining about is illegal, why? so, they're ought to be a law. what is it you think we do here? >> i have concrete suggestions of ways the law might be changed

and changes in the law that might contribute to curbing the the legal piracy. the digital millennium copyright act was really envisioned content owners sending a website address to a website and forcing them to take it down and that's created part of the cat and mouse game. they take it down and it will get immediately riposted. fingerprinting, we can to change what notice to read you give the website a fingerprint instead of specific website address and ask them to screen for everything that contains the fingerprint and that represents the most. a basic problem is the dmca operates after the fact, after the content is posted and requested to be taken down. the dmca requirement can be changed for live programming where you know what time it will be broadcast. given advance notice of when that program will be provided and ask them to take appropriate

measures in the absence of a specific web address by broadening the notion what notice means not just a website address the general notice when life content is likely to come out and make that a basis for potential liability for any one facilitate in that content under the dmca. another ambiguity is contradictory in french and addressed by the supreme court case. the case really instead of addressing one of the substantial questions about how substantial as the infringement have to be before it triggers contributory infringement. the supreme court issue left unresolved and the case decided on different grounds. interestingly the concurrence split down the middle how substantial the mom infringing uses have to be before it constitutes contributory infringement. a perfect area where there is ambiguity in the mall where congress can step in and provide a much-needed clarity about ways that would make it easier to

curb the kind of piracy we are talking about today. last as mr. durso pointed out, industry got together for the generated content and we found solutions for the pre-reported content in ways that didn't involve so much direct legal enforcement. it said just a different role congress might plead which is holding up hearings like the one we are having today to encourage players to come to the table to find the ways, to find common ground because everybody has to recognize nobody wins unless the content is provided in the ways that are protected and ways people can generate revenue. everyone has to -- that has to be aligned. no one can make money unless the programs are provided and provided in a way to generate revenue for people willing to pay for it and i think hearings like we are having today can be an important part of the process. >> i thank all of you. you've been very helpful in getting us started.

remember this is only the first hearing so we have a way to go. i am pleased to recognize bob good lot, senior member of this committee from virginia. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing. this is the first hearing held on the dmca negative and quite some time and i can remember very well going back i think more than ten years ago when we wrote that legislation. i was asked by then chairman hyde to sit in a room with representatives of the contant industry, the internet service provider industry, the universities and other users of internet content and try to manage a negotiation of this notice and take down issue. and we came up with something that we thought was very good at that time in fact it was well received by folks on every side of this issue. but it requires that isp

expeditiously removed materials and i suppose the meaning of the word expeditiously has got to change or the dmca has got to change and i don't know how many people here agree with professor yoo we have to open to enact some of the suggestions he made which are worthy suggestions, but i would like to ask mr. seibel since his product is the focus and as i understand you are sort of like the youtube of light streaming online and i know that you have a lot of experience with this notice and take down issue. what is the typical amount of time and internet service provider takes to remove infringing content once a notice of entrenchment is received. how fast is it possible to take down infringing materials once that notice is received? >> so, justin.tv's system for

implementing the dmca take, we refer to as the copyright protection system and essentially it transfers the typical take down e-mail notice which is usually in the form of a letter into an online form. as a result, our ability to remove content once we have been notified is extremely fast because we have been able to push this from the kind of letter and e-mail world into an online form as soon as we are notified through the copyright protection system our system can then go about removing fat content. >> i would guess that mr. mellis and mr. fertitta and mr. durso would say that in the environment of light streaming particularly where it is broken down into the 102nd increments, if they are going to protect their copyrighted material they've got to get a notice to

somebody really fast and they've got to respond virtually immediately which is different than what we sat around and talked about ten years ago. is that a feasible environment to operate in? can de -- i guess they could see coming the fact that they are going to have these programs on the air and they can then be on the locale but i don't know if they can be on the lookout for thousands of people who might take the opportunity to stream and use your service to stream. you may have the capability of quickly taking them down. but what has been your experience with this thus far? >> the reason we have developed both for copyright protection system and live filtering system is to address the specific issue that you bring up. essentially what we want to provide is both a system whereby people can look at the site, identified the content and have it removed immediately but also

a system by which people can provide us with a fingerprint and we will use our fingerprinting partner to automatically search out and remove this content from the site in our effort to work with copyright holders we are trying to encompass both issues how can we make sure once on tight to the content is identified its removed quickly and confront the issue in a more automated fashion. >> there's another side of this issue and that is the user of your service and other internet sites or the people who may have a web site which they are placing some material that may or may not be copyrighted, and i have received complaints from individuals who have complained their content has been taken down and appropriately. are you able to judge quickly enough and accurately enough the

content you are taken down is indeed copyrighted material that is entitled to the protection under the dmca? >> our understanding is once we receive a take down notice regardless of its validity, we are required to act upon the cheek down notice and in addition required to offer to the user whose content has been taken down the ability to counter that take down. in our experience however, copyright owners have been extremely good on got ya a gift.

it's a bartender. it's a captain and cola. marhhhh ahhh. (announcer) calling all captains. drink responsibly.

so here's a great holiday meal deal. right now get two medium one topping pizzas and five breadsticks for just $14.99. that's enough to feed the whole family. carryout and we'll throw in a free two liter pepsi. happy holideal from pizza hut.

welcome back. scott huff alongside joe sebok. obviously a ton of action happening.

we have the wpt, world series of poker circuit about to kick off, but maybe the biggest prize that can be given away depending is is this poker stars.net million dollar challenge. >> it's the most exciting. these guys are not professional players. these are internet qualifiers getting a shot. so i think everyone is keeping their eyes on that. >> they're down to the final four and here are your finalists. mike, a 9/11 first responder. he'll join andrew, brian and sergeant denny. they'll have a chance for a million bucks. you can see it december 27th following football on fox. and don't forget to head over to the qualifier and your collapse at world series of poker gold.

>> can i enter? >> nope. >> please? >> negative. >> join us again next week as we'll be back with the diamond class i go. but for now i'd like to thank mike sexton. mike sexton. keep our seats open.

lston, the veteran, and a game justs over right now on "the final score" presented by burger king. elevator? >> practice? who needs practice. >> this is just a beautiful move. >> howard dominant. >> that was ridiculous. >> no soup for you, mister. >> you can do that. >> don't go there. >> to you and to you and to you. >> hi there. hope you're doing well. i'm andrew siciliano. thank you so much for watching. coming up, a baseball bonanza of cash. first, the basketball, and the hollywood lakers, wfor the firs time all year out on the road. only six of 23 games so far have been played away from home. and only once before wednesday

had the lakers played back-to-backs on the road. and this one is unlike most roadies. they played saturday in utah. then the lakers went home for a day before heading to chicago. then after the lakers beat the bulls, they stayed in chicago before bussing to milwaukee for our opening act. kobe bryant, bad finger and all, not pictured, had 42 on thursday. michael redd, nice move to the baseline, laid it in. bucks up four. re redd's seventh game of the year, that's it. andrew bynum dunks. tight game at the half. jam of the night belongs to hakeem warrick. he went to syracuse. thought i'd get that in there. going to overtime now. 95-95. sixers trying to win back-to-backs for the first time since october. cavs in town. cavs up three. lebron james. get out of his way please. and then go the other way. lebron can do that.

he swats sam dalembert. actually, his shot. third quarter, tied at 72. andre iguodala, from allen iverson. close game through three. in the first half, lebron. did he kick that? he didn't do it. sit in the corner, hit a three. then, lebron again. he had 36, a game high. cavs have won four in a row. this one on the road. turkoglu playing in orlando, first time since he signed with the raptors. first quarter, magic up eight. the guy they replaced him with, vince carter to dwight howard. magic up 11. third quarter. those same two. little pick and roll action. howard jams. he had 18. go to the fourth. this was kind of ugly. magic up 17. i mentioned dwight howard. here he is defensively, swatting marcus banks. howard had eight blocks. magic swatted 14.

they win it 118-99. >> i guarantee you he's got butterflies in his stomach. >> here comes mcgrady. i don't think anybody expected to see him tonight. >> i was a little nervous. just a great feeling just to be back on the basketball court. >> believe it or not, the fans in houston often booed when tracy mcgrady's face showed up on the scoreboard at the toyota center. they booed because mcgrady wasn't playing, but they were paying him $22 million a year, and he hasn't seen the court since last february. fans weren't happy, understandably. that changed on tuesday. they cheered him. he came back, warm reception. had three. one of two from the field in his brief debut. here he is again. talking to luis scola. first quarter. mcgrady drives, but looses the handle. nuggets go the other way. nuggets will finish, chauncey billups to carmelo anthony. mcgrady, scoreless. missed his only attempt in the first half. more from melo.

he, too, at syracuse. nuggets lead third quarter by four. jazz in new jersey. first quarter, deron williams in the lane, and then dishes to carlos boozer. jazz have an 11-point lead at the break. up 14, pick it up in the third. williams to fesenko. williams, really the motor on this machine. andriy kirilenko to boozer. 26-10 for boozer. jazz cruise. hornets won both meetings with the pistons last season. this one is in new orleans. reggie bush in the house, sitting courtside. second quarter. will bynum. then bynum again to villenueva. pistons, 22 points, eight assists off the bench. skip to the fourth quarter. david west, nice move from the elbow.

drives, jams with the left. hornets cut it to one. now they're up two, about a minute to go. chris paul to west. jumper. hornets rally. hornets win it 95-87. another day, another record for martin brodeur. the latest for the soon to be hall of famer is a nod to longevity. he didn't have to do much wednesday. all he had to do was suit up and take the ice. he tied patrick roy, most games played in net. the number is 1,029. most in the regular season. there he is, marty brodeur with the canadiens in town. first period, devils on the power play. jamie langenbrunner going to cough it up. moen beats brodeur. habs take the lead. now tied at one, late third. brian rolston, patrik elias collects the garbage, and the devils win it 2-1. senators playing without jason spezza, out eigsix to eig

weeks. picard beats ryan miller. his third. 1-0 sens which is still where it is in the third. big rush in front of the net. puck out to regan. mike fisher, the rebound. carrie ubnderwood, your thought? 2-1, sens over the sabres. thrashers trying to win three-straight. kind of scary here. spot shadow now. zach bogosian going to hit kulikov in the neck. right in the neck. he would be okay. we pick it up in the third now. tied at three. >> got it to weiss. weiss doesn't want to go that far. on the backhand, save, rebound, score. fro is my bro. >> is he? frohlich with the goal. whether you call them companion deals or just as you

see it, either way, it's complicated. everything became official on wednesday. cliff lee is a mariner, and roy halladay is now a philly. he leaves toronto for three years and $60 million. >> it was an easy decision for me. i think once the opportunity came up to be apart of this, it was something i couldn't pass up. you know, i'm overwhelmed with, you know, this opportunity and looking forward to what could be, so, you know, for me, it's kind of a two-part thing, but i'm excited to be able to continue that, the chance to try and play in the postseason and ultimately win a world series. this guy might be the most expensive number three starter in baseball. john lackey smiled for the cameras in boston. five years, $82.5 million, he leaves the angels. >> i was always interested in coming here. i mean, winning was definitely my first priority for a team to

go to. there's only a certain amount of teams that i would even consider leaving anaheim for. this was at the top of my list. i'm excited about the opportunity, and just really fired up to be apart of this organization. it will be a, you know, good fit for me, i think. the situation for chris henry is now described as dire. wednesday evening, the cincinnati wide receiver was on life support in charlotte after reportedly falling out of a moving truck during a domestic dispute. henry is on injured reserve for the season. he was reportedly living in north carolina with his fiance. coming up on "the final score" presented by burger king, cincinnati has a new football coach. but it's the bear cat basketball team that was looking for a little help on wednesday. from one seed back in march to n.i.t. this year, can louisville pick up the pieces? and start spreading the news. sean avery is up to his old tricks. tricks. islanders/rangers, coming up.

caption funding provided by fox sports net it's a bartender. it's a captain and cola. marhhhh ahhh.

(announcer) calling all captains. drink responsibly. ♪ i always feel like (announcer) it's right here, it's easy... ♪ somebody's watching me. ...it's the money you could be saving with geico. ♪ who's watching? ♪ tell me who's watching. (muffled music) (announcer) it's right here, it's easy... ♪ i always feel like somebody's watching me. ♪ it's the money you could be saving with geico.

"the final score" presented by burger king. islanders/rangers, first of a home and home. first period, no score. a crazy bounce here for jack hillen. it goes off jon sim and beats henrik lundqvist. that's sim's third.

in the second, little heated here. roloson is going to go after sean avery, and ravery goes nuts. avery get as roughing. strike a pose. islanders win it 2-1. leafs have won four straight at home after winning just two of 12. first period, scoreless. phoenix power play. cashed in by petr prucha. there's more, like here in a 1-0 game. in the second, petr prucha's second of the night. sixth of the season. just hanging out. coyotes win it 6-3 in toronto. stars have won five of six against the hurricanes. canes up 1-0. ruutu, spinning. beating marty turco to make it 2-0. but there is more ruutu to for you. like goal number two for ruutu. then, as time winds down, how about an empty net hat trick for ruutu? his first career hat trick, it counts. canes win it 5-3.

blues/blackhawks. to the united center. first period. chicago is up 1-0, power play. brian campbell, slapper. makes it 2-0. second period, it will be jonathan toews. to marian hossa for his fifth. hawks win it 3-0. i beg your pardon, 3-0 in the third. the road to cincinnati, ohio, runs through mt. pleasant, michigan. after losing brian kelly to notre dame, the bear cats went back to central michigan -- butch jones. he takes over after the sugar bowl date with florida. >> i'm going to be around, but i'm going to be in the background. it's all about them finishing what they started. i talked to them about them leaving their legacy. they have an opportunity to leave their legacy, and to me, it's all about the kids. no coach has ever thrown a pass,

no coach has ever caught a touchdown pass or made a tackle. and that's the basis of our football family. it's about the kids. i'll be an onlooker, but i'll be a bystander, i don't want to get in the way of anything of attempting them to go 13-0. i've always wondered, do the new coaches have their own tie matching the school or does the school give the new coach the new tie? this is the cincinnati basketball team on the road at uab. that's elijah millsap. he had 22 points and 15 rebounds. aaron johnson. right down the lane. cincinnati loses in birmingham, 64-47. louisville coming off two home losses, now hosting oral roberts. first half, think they're in control. the alley-oop. cardinals up at the break. second half, who gets credit for this? edgar sosa throws it up and buckleson and smith -- who gets that one?

jerry smith, two. louisville, a win. having a laugh. ohio state won its only meeting with presbyterian. no seniors on this team. buckeyes up 25. dallas lauderdale misses the lob. hill, the steal, the bucket. pres, ten turnovers in the first half. david lighty, can't stop him. this got ugly. 78-48 for the buckeyes. >> cal poly and wisconsin. first half, badgers up ten. hughes, the take away. then the other way. hughes and the badgers up 12. badgers would lead by 32 at the half thanks to this from hughes. second half, it's 86-36. north florida and northwestern in lovely evanston.

second half, michael thompson. not my radio partner. from the corner. wild cats up 15. and then, still second half, john sherna, grab me an air ball. an and one. second hair, 75-43. coming up on "the final score" presented by burger king, on any given night, there's a 1 in 6 chance stephen jackson is playing one of his old teams. tonight is one of those nights. clemson and wake will pick on the little guys, and we have photos of that, coming up. (announcer) pizza hut knows you've been good.

so here's a great holiday meal deal. right now get two medium one topping pizzas and five breadsticks for just $14.99. that's enough to feed the whole family. carryout and we'll throw in a free two liter pepsi. happy holideal from pizza hut. inger: was getting depressed ♪ i was feeling at home 'cause of all of the stress ♪ ♪ had a poor credit score ♪ and the number would haunt me wherever i'd go ♪ ♪ thought i'd move to a place where my credit could stink ♪ ♪ and nobody would care ♪ i just wish that somebody had told me ♪ ♪ that place was a renaissance fair! ♪ ♪ free credit report dot com! tell your friends, ♪ ♪ tell your dad,tell your mom! ♪ never mind, they've been singing our songs ♪ ♪ since we first showed up with our pirate hats on! ♪ ♪ if you're not into fake sword fights ♪ ♪ pointy slippers and green wool tights ♪ ♪ take a tip from a knight who knows ♪ ♪ free credit report dot com, let's go! ♪ legal vo: offer applies with enrollment in triple advantage

"the final score" presented by burger king. more college basketball. clemson and east carolina. first half, clemson in orange, if you didn't figure that out. any booker will do. clemson is up ten. second half, they're rofling. blowout. 80-63. wake forest and unc wilmington. first half, your seahawks would hang tough for awhile. lacy misses, but then does not. demon deacons get demony. the tip-in. wake up 13. and then they keep on adding.

l.d. williams, catches the lob, alley-oop me. 8 80-69. wright state and mississippi state. second half. bulldogs up 13. jarvis fernardo. what a boss. mississippi state up 15. under two to go now. up 11. the swat. 17, eight boards, six blocks. 08-49. stephen jackson is used to taking on his old team. he has five of them. now on his sixth stop, jackson seems to be settling in nicely with larry brown and charlotte. the former net, spur, hawk, warrior and pacer was back in indiana wednesday, now with his new bob cats. jackson and the cats just 1-10 on the road this season. there he is, say hi. third quarter, pacers up 16. t.j. ford on the tribble with the head band, into the lane. finds roy hibbert. he's a hoya.

pacers up 15, still in the third. stephen jackson, two of his 22, right at the shot clock. fourth quarter, pacers lead now down to seven. gerald wallace right at tyler hansbrough for the lane. 29-12 for wallace. pacers up five. bob kaments now need a three. boris diaw passed up the shot. d.j. augustin shoots it too late. larry, what do you think? hawks riding a four-game win streak. grizzlies in town. joe johnson, cherry picking. he had a game high 26. rough night for rudy gay. here's rudy. baseline pullup. sinks that, but he's limping after. then in the third he's going to twist his ankle there -- ow. i hadn't seen that. he's going to head to the bench. sprained ankle. he had 11. third quarter, hawks up 15. jamal crawford. nice.

110-97. mavs have won four straight, here they are in oklahoma city. thunlder up by two. kevin durant misses, but however, the bucket. still in the fourth, dallas. helping on durant. erick dampier with the block. that's swatted away by dirk nowitzki. mavs start to pull away. nowitzki to dampier. then, dirk with the three. dirk, 35 and 11. 100-86. clippers start a six-game road trip in minnesota, taking on kurt rambis and the crew. clippers up nine. chris kaman had 23-10. and he can do that. third quarter, marcus camby. the block. daron davis, the spin. he runs behind the back, and that was nice. 13 points, 13 assists for the bearded one.

fourth quarter, baron and camby again. he's got it. 10 and 18 boards in a 120-95 win. lakers and bucks, just went final. and look at how it ended. kobe bryant at the buzzer. are you not entertained? lakers win it 107-106 in overtime. ho hum. ho hum. coming up on

ho hum. coming up on in 1977, in johannesburg, south africa,

an 8-year-old boy picked up the game of golf from his father. by the age of 9, he was already outplaying him. the odds of this gentle lad winning the junior world golf championships at the age of 14? 1 in 16 million. the odds of that same boy then making it to the u.s. and european pro-golf tours? 1 in 7 million. the odds of the "big easy" winning the open championship once and the u.s. open championship twice? 1 in 780 million. the odds of this professional golfer having a child diagnosed with autism? 1 in 150. ernie els encourages you to learn the signs of autism at autismspeaks.org. early diagnosis can make a lifetime of difference.

time to go to the overtime report, brought to you by las vegas. coming up, top of the hour, most of these regions youshgs hardwood series rolls on. oklahoma state and stanford. nba, wizards have won eight straight over the kings. first quarter, is evans your rookie of the year? well, he does things like. that on the other end, gilbert arenas swatted by evans. go the other way. 22-19. don nelson back after missing five games with pneumonia. he's back with the spurs in town. spurs playing back-to-backs, looked awful against the suns.

first quarter, warriors down one. they are the ones in yellow. maggette. popovich calls a time-out. first quarter still. curry. knocks that one down. 14-12, it is early. back to the hockey, canucks trying to win four straight. the ducks in town. first period no score. bobby ryan goes the other way, and he goes what's called five hole. it is ryan's 15th of the year. . . brothers, not the movie but daniel and henrik sedin tie it up at one the other way. . wig and liv. your long centering pass. >> the header was enough, and how they needed that! >> right! 2-1, liverpool is a winner. that is it, we're out of

here. i'm andrew siciliano. thank you for for watching. we showed it to you like five minutes ago. your las vegas "big moment" is kobe bryant at the buzzer. >> there's a move. two, one -- >> kobe bryant. >> unbelievable. >> yes! >> he does it. >> it's over. >> was there ever a doubt? >> kobe wins it for the i'll have one of those. you know every time you order a captain and cola a holiday fairy gets her wings. shh, holiday fairy.

thank you tim. (announcer) calling all captains. drink responsibly. ♪ tell me who's watching. ♪ i always feel like somebody's watching me. ♪ (announcer) it's right here. it's easy. ♪ always feel like mebody's watching me. ♪it'sd girl: my name is emily, and in 7 years... i'll be an alcoholic. all: hi, emily. announcer: kids who drink before age 15